Reading these posts I am a bit confused? How many of you invest outside the city you live in and look into property cycles? Not one city keeps growing uniformly year after year, but most follow the growth after each other. cities become undervalued, overvalued or on par.
Say from history the median price between VIC and QLD was around $60k but VIC prices grew so the disparity is now $110k in price. Smart investors will look elsewhere to invest.
I think his comments are quite general in nature and we should always back up information with our own research. Perhaps my thinking is simple but past history tells similar story. Just obtain stats on the cities and what growth they experienced and you will see not ALL of them grew simultaneously and continuously, but rather followed growth after each other, right?